Final answer:
The support for physician-assisted death reflects varied ethical perspectives in medical ethics, including utilitarian views favoring the alleviation of suffering and opposing views that emphasize the physician's duty to do no harm and the potential ethical harm to society.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to Dr. Leon Kass, the reasons that are often given to support physician-assisted death reflect a variety of ethical perspectives in medical ethics. On one hand, utilitarian supporters like Australian moral philosopher Peter Singer argue that it is moral to help someone avoid unnecessary pain and thus support physician-assisted death if it alleviates suffering. On the other side, opponents of euthanasia argue that it could cause ethical harm to society and that physicians have a duty to 'do no harm', conflicting with actively ending a patient's life.
American ethicist James Rachels challenged the distinction between active and passive euthanasia by asserting that when the intent is to alleviate suffering, active euthanasia could be more humane as it brings immediate end to suffering, compared to passive euthanasia that may prolong it. This debate reflects deep ethical divides about the value of life, the role of medicine, and patient autonomy, which inform the complex landscape - both legally and ethically - around physician-assisted death and euthanasia.